Spouses De Dios v. Rañola

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171344. March 6, 2019.]

SPOUSES CANDELARIO DE DIOS, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: ZOSIMA A. DE DIOS, CANDELARIO A. DE DIOS, JR., EDGAR A. DE DIOS, LEO A. DE DIOS, RONALD A. DE DIOS, ROGER A. DE DIOS, REY A. DE DIOS AND LEX A. DE DIOS AND ZOSIMA ARAGON, petitioners, vs.ROMEO RAÑOLA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 171344 (SPOUSES CANDELARIO DE DIOS, substituted by his heirs, namely: ZOSIMA A. DE DIOS, CANDELARIO A. DE DIOS, JR., EDGAR A. DE DIOS, LEO A. DE DIOS, RONALD A. DE DIOS, ROGER A. DE DIOS, REY A. DE DIOS AND LEX A. DE DIOS AND ZOSIMA ARAGON, Petitioners, v. ROMEO RAÑOLA, Respondent.) — This dispute relates to the contested ownership of three lots and their improvements situated in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu and designated as Lot No. 2100 (1,453 square meters), Lot No. 2279 (771 square meters) and Lot No. 8970 (710 square meters), all of the Catmon Cadastre.

Antecedents

On August 9, 1989, the petitioners commenced this case against Salvador Arendain in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8165, was assigned to Branch 22 of the RTC, and pertinently alleged as follows:

III

The plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners of a parcel of land and its improvements situated at Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu, which parcel of land is more particularly described as follows, to wit:

"Tax Declaration No. 007678 for the year 1971 in the name of Candelario de Dios Sr.; Location: Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu; Boundaries: N-Sea, S-Sea, E-Sea, W-National Road; Area: 600 square meters; Present Possessor: herein plaintiffs."

xxx xxx xxx

IV

Since the year 1971 and until the present, or a period of eighteen (18) years already, the plaintiffs have been in continuous and peaceful possession of the aforesaid parcel of land and its improvements which possession in open, public, peaceful and to the exclusion of all others; aScITE

V

The defendant knows the fact that the plaintiffs are the genuine and absolute owners of the aforesaid parcel of land since plaintiff Candelario de Dios Sr. has been a resident of Catmon, Cebu, before he transferred residence to Cebu City, and plaintiff Candelario de Dios Sr. during week-ends always visits the aforesaid property. Moreover, the plaintiff Candelario de Dios Sr. is a close friend of Tito Arendain, the father of the herein defendant;

VI

In the exercise of their rights of ownership and possession over the aforesaid parcel of land which is a beach-front property, the plaintiffs in the year 1971 have built nipa huts within the property and has used the same for recreational purposes since that year and until 1988, and the defendant has never lifted a finger to prevent or stop the plaintiffs from exercising the aforesaid acts of ownership and possession, until lately in the present year, 1989;

VII

Last June of 1989, after an absence of visits to the property for nearly six (6) months, due to the illness of the herein plaintiff Candelario de Dios Sr., the plaintiffs found out much to their surprise that the herein defendant has made it appear and/or misrepresented to people in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu, and to visiting tourists, that he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid parcel of land and in fact permitted a foreigner to build n a nipa hut inside the property of the plaintiffs, which nipa hut has since been abandoned by the aforesaid foreigner. Defendant is now threatening to build a new nipa hut inside the aforesaid property.

 

VIII

The aforesaid acts and misrepresentations of the defendant although patently baseless and illegal, constitute a cloud upon the absolute and exclusive ownership and other proprietary rights of the plaintiffs over the aforesaid parcel of land, which baseless and illegal claim should be removed or stricken down by judicial declaration and authority so that the plaintiffs can continue with their peaceful use and enjoyment of their aforesaid properties;

IX

Plaintiffs have demanded upon the defendant to withdraw their aforesaid illegal and baseless claims over the aforesaid properties of the plaintiffs and to cease and desist from violating the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs, but said defendants without just and valid reason, adamantly refused to comply; 1

xxx xxx xxx

The plaintiffs prayed that they be declared as the true, absolute and exclusive owners of the parcel of land. 2

In his answer, Arendain countered that only 200 square meters constituted the area covered by the plaintiffs' Tax Declaration No. 007678; that the land with an area of 660 square meters to the west of their land belonged to him as shown by his Tax Declaration No. 17068; and that he had been in peaceful, public and continuous possession of the land in the concept of an owner since 1972, paying realty taxes thereon. 3

After the case was set for pre-trial conference, Maria Concepcion Riveral (Riveral) filed her complaint in intervention, 4 whereby she averred being the legitimate owner of the land subject of the complaint after having acquired the same from her grandfather, Tito Arendain (Tito); that prior to his death, Tito had extrajudicially partitioned his estate among his heirs, including Riveral's mother, Leonora Arendain (Leonora); 5 that under the extrajudicial partition, the lot in question had been allocated to Gloria Arendain, 6 but was later on transferred to Leonora by Deed of Exchange of Real Property; 7 and that Leonora had eventually sold the lot to her on May 11, 1989. 8

Arendain did not appear at the pre-trial conference, and was declared as in default upon motion of the petitioners. 9

On December 16, 1992, the respondent also presented his complaint in intervention 10 to assert his legal right and interest over the lot in question by virtue of his having purchased the same from Riveral. 11

On May 31, 1996, the RTC rendered judgment after trial, finding and disposing as follows:

There are three lots involved in this case: Lot Nos. 2100, 2279 and 8970 per result of the cadastral survey conducted by the office of the DENR and plaintiffs appeared as the claimants therein as certified to by the said office (Exh. Q). Subsequently, intervenor Maria Concepcion Riveral was included as party claimants per the latter's request which the office of the DENR accommodated (Exh. B of the plaintiffs). HEITAD

There is contest involving the three lots (Nos. 2100, 2279 and 8970) with respect to both intervenors Riveral and Rañola in this case. Plaintiffs however, confine their claim only to two lots only, namely, Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 situated North of Lot No. 2100.

xxx xxx xxx

The lot covered by TD No. 4282 has the following boundaries, namely, North — Franscisca Butanas, East — seashore, South — Creek and West is the National Road. Engr. Lorenzo T. Esmero, Land Management Sector Coordinator, Correction Survey, Cad. 991-D which refers to Catmon, Cadastre categorically identified and pointed to Lot 2100 as the lot covered and delineated by the said boundaries. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in most cases the area indicated in the tax declaration is not always reflective of the actual area of the lot therein covered. This happens as in this case, especially with respect to those lots which cadastral survey has not yet been undertaken.

It is thus obvious that the lot which intervenor Riveral owned or used to own is that parcel of land now referred to as Lot No. 2100. The sudden disappearance of defendant Salvador Arendain from this case strikes the Court. Had defendant Salvador Arendain pursued his own claim to some of the subject lots, an inevitable conflicting claims between relatives — uncle and niece — would have arisen. The Court notes that defendant Salvador Arendain, himself, admitted of plaintiffs' ownership over certain lot although he qualified and limited his admission to plaintiffs ownership over that 200 sq. mtrs. area indicated in TD 007678.

Tax Declaration 007678 is being identified by the following boundaries North — Sea, East — Sea, South — Sea, West — National Road. Engr. Lorenzo T. Esmero when asked to identify the lot delineated by the said boundaries, categorically and emphatically pointed to Lot 2279 and 8970.

The Court from its own honest observation is inclined to share the findings of the said Geodetic Engineer who was already in office (DENR) when Catmon cadastral survey was undertaken. After a judicious scrutiny (sic) of the evidence presented by the parties, the Court is fully convinced that plaintiffs are owners of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970. These are the properties covered by Tax Declaration No. 007678 and bounded by the following boundaries, North — Sea, East — Sea, South — Sea and West — National Road. With this factual finding, the Court is left to decide on who is entitled to Lot 2100 which is jointly contested by both intervenors Riveral and Rañola.

Lot No. 2100 per result of the cadastral survey has an area of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE (1,453) square meters. This is the biggest of herein three lots. This is the only lot purchased by intervenor Rañola from intervenor Riveral. Thus the Deed of Sale (Exh. 1-Rañola) identifies the lot subject of the sale as that parcel of land covered by TD 19090. Tax Declaration No. 19090 refers to Lot 2100 despite attempt by intervenor Rañola to include lot nos. 2279 and 8979 had it not been for the timely discovery by plaintiff de Dios and the immediate rectification effected by the Provincial Assessor of Cebu.

WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the plaintiffs Spouses Candelario and Zosima De Dios absolute and true owners over parcels of land denominated as Lot No. 2279 containing an area of 771 square meters and Lot No. 8979 (sic) containing an area of 710 square meters per cadastral survey no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre.

The Court further declares intervenor Romeo Rañola owner over Lot No. 2100 containing an area of 1,453 square meters per cadastral survey no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre.

The Complaint in Interventioned (sic) filed by intervenor Maria Concepcion Riveral is hereby dismissed.

xxx xxx xxx

For insufficiency of evidence, monetary claims in the complaint and interventions, are hereby dismissed.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.12 TIADCc

Riveral and Rañola separately appealed the judgment of the RTC. 13

On August 4, 2005, the CA promulgated the assailed decision partially reversing the judgment of the RTC as to Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970, 14 to wit:

x x x Romeo Rañola has a better right over the said lot. As gleaned from the complaint, the tax declaration of plaintiff-appellee Spouses de Dios would show that it was declared under Presidential Decree No. 76, paragraph 5 of which states that "all existing tax declarations as of December 31, 1973 shall be superseded by the corresponding new tax declarations issued under this Decree. Collections, however, of delinquent real property taxes as of December 31, 1973 shall be computed on the basis of the assessed value and rates of penalty then obtaining." In the testimony of Engineer Roger De Dios on cross-examination, he stated as follows, to wit:

Atty. Monteclar:

   So there is no existing tax declaration prior to the issuance of this tax declaration?

Roger De Dios:

   Yes because during that time, when my father assumed the property that was the time we knew that it was not declared by any tax declaration; that was the time it was declared in his name.

Furthermore, on the same cross examination, said witness stated that "he thinks that Tito Arendain was once the owner of the property in question."

Roger de Dios, son of plaintiff-appellee also states on direct examination that the property in question, "was occupied by my grandparents and it was only during the time of my father sometime in 1971, that the property was registered for tax declaration purposes."

Upon the other hand, intervenor Romeo Rañola's right to the property in questions rests on his claim of ownership as follows:

After the death of TITO ARENDAIN, an Extra-Judicial Partition was executed and the land in question was allocated to GLORIA ARENDAIN.

Subsequent to the partition, a Deed of Exchange was executed wherein the parcel of land allocated to GLORIA ARENDAIN was exchanged to that of LEONORA ARENDAIN RIVERAL.

Finally, Maria Concepcion Riveral executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 11, 1990 wherein Lots 2100, 2279 and 8970 was sold to ROMEO RAÑOLA.

As gleaned from the records of the case, We also note that Atty. Nicanor Enriquez, Provincial Assessor of the Province of Cebu, stated on cross examination of Atty. Guidoquio that the affidavit of Candelario de Dios was the only basis for transfer of the tax declaration in the name of Candelario de Dios.

As to the second issue of Lot number 2100, the trial court is correct in its assessment of the case when it stated that said lot is owned by intervenor-appellant, Romeo Rañola since Ma. Concepcion Riveral in her testimony as witness accepted she sold Lot 2100 but is now intervening for the other two lots. If intervenor Maria Concepcion Riveral sold Lot 2100, it therefore follows that she also sold Lots 2279 and 8970 since the origin of the three lots was from the Estate of Tito Arendain. Furthermore, the Deed of Absolute Sale indubitably shows that she sold the three above-mentioned lots to appellant.

The trial court is not correct in stating that plaintiffs-appellees has a better right over said property since the title of plaintiffs over said property is spurious and has no leg to stand on. It is therefore clear that said property should be given to intervenor Romeo Rañola since he has a legal right to said lots.

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the instant Appeal, the same is hereby GRANTED, and the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 22, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-8165 is partly ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE insofar as it awarded Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 to plaintiffs Spouses Candelario De Dios and Zosima Aragon, and a new judgment entered declaring Intervenor Romeo Rañola as the rightful owner of said Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970.

The rest of the judgment is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.15

The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied their motion on January 19, 2006. 16 AIDSTE

Hence, the petitioners appeal, submitting that:

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT INTERVENOR MARIA CONCEPCION RIVERAL ALSO SOLD LOTS 2279 AND 8970 TO THE RESPONDENT, MAKING HIM THE RIGHTFUL OWNER THEREOF; AND

2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONERS' TITLE OVER LOT NOS. 2279 AND 8970 IS SPURIOUS AND HAS NO LEG TO STAND ON. 17

Ruling of the Court

The Court PARTLY GRANTS the appeal.

1.

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty in title to real property. 18 For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be present, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title or interest must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 19

Both requisites were wanting in this case.

First of all, the petitioners did not have legal or equitable title to or interest in the real properties subject of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, 20 which the petitioners did not possess inasmuch as they did not have certificates of title under their names. They also did not prove that they held an equitable title over the lands, which meant beneficial ownership derived from either a valid contract or relation, and, based on recognized equitable principles, the right of the party to whom the lands belonged to have the legal title transferred to them. 21 Their claim over the lands merely rested on Tax Declaration No. 007678 and their possession thereof since 1971. Their complaint did not also allege that their claim had been based on acquisitive prescription.

And, secondly, the complaint did not state that an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding had beclouded the petitioners' title over the properties involved. 22 They averred therein only that defendant Arendain, the predecessor of Rañola, had made it appear that he was the absolute owner, thus allowing the construction of the nipa hut thereon. The acts thus averred could be considered grounds to bring an action for forcible entry but not an action for the quieting of title. 23

Accordingly, the complaint for quieting of title should instead be dismissed for not being the proper remedy for the petitioners to commence in order to assert their claim, if any.

2.

Based on the records, the Court concludes that the CA patently erred in declaring Rañola the rightful owner of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970.

This appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should only consider and resolve questions of law. A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact results when the issue revolves around the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. A question, to be one of law, must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by any of the litigants, and the resolution must solely depend on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is obvious that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is factual. 24

The issue presented here is essentially factual in nature. The petitioners asserted their ownership only as to the lot containing 600 square meters whose boundaries were described in their Tax Declaration No. 007678. acEHCD

The resolution of the issue requires an assessment of the evidence presented by the parties, which is best left to the lower courts. Nonetheless, the Court can resolve the issue by way of exception to its not being a trier of fact considering that the findings of the CA were contrary to those by the trial court. 25

The Court concludes that the petitioners could not be declared owners of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970.

Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims of having a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed and second, his title to the same. 26 The person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. 27

The petitioners failed in both regards.

The petitioners' complaint identified the lot sought to be declared under their names as that located in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu with an area of 600 square meters, bound on the North, South and East by the sea, and on the West by the national road, as stated in Tax Declaration No. 007678. 28 The copy of Tax Declaration No. 007678 29 attached to the complaint showed that the area of the subject property was only 200 square meters, not 600 square meters as alleged by the petitioners in their complaint. Based on the result of the cadastral survey conducted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the petitioners' claim also covered Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970, 30 with a combined area of 1,481 square meters. 31 Undeniably, there is a serious doubt as to the identity of the property claimed by the petitioners as they were not able to explain the significant increase in the area thereof during the trial. Even assuming that there was a mistake in the declaration of the area of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 in the tax declaration, the petitioners did not initiate any action to correct the same.

Neither could Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 be declared under the name of Rañola. He also did not preponderantly establish being the owner of the lots. In Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr., 32 the Court has reminded that:

It is an age-old rule in civil cases that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.

xxx xxx xxx

Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.

Rañola did not discharge this burden as he was not able to prove his ownership of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 by preponderance of evidence. While Rañola appears to have acquired legal title by virtue of the series of conveyances — from Tito's Extra-Judicial Partition, to the Deed of Exchange between Gloria and Leonora, then the Deed of Sale between Leonara and Riveral, and finally Riveral's Deed of Absolute Sale — the property subject of these transfers was clearly different from the property being claimed by the petitioners.

The property sold by Riveral to Rañola consisted of 506 square meters of agricultural land and 250 square meters of residential land, or a total of 756 square meters. Its boundaries are: north — Francisco Butanes, east — seashore, south — creek, and west — national road. 33 Aside from the obvious disparity in the area and boundaries, the property being claimed by the petitioners are residential in nature while that of Rañola consisted of agricultural and residential land. Consequently, Rañola's claim of ownership over Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 could not prosper because he did not sufficiently establish that Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 were parts of the parcel of land that he had acquired from Riveral. SDHTEC

On the other hand, the DENR's cadastral survey disclosed that the property claimed by Rañola and his predecessor-in-interest, Riveral, pertained only to Lot No. 2100. 34 In fact, Riveral testified that the property she had acquired from her mother that she later on sold to Rañola was Lot No. 2100 only, to wit:

Q  Miss Riveral, you just simple (sic) became . . . or you claim the property sometimes (sic) in the year 1989?

A  Yes, sir, that is the time when I acquired the parcels of land.

xxx xxx xxx

Q  Now, do you have a copy of that deed of sale executed between you and your own mother?

A  Yes, sir, I have.

Q  Would you kindly produce them?

A  Yes, sir, (at this juncture, witness produced the deed of sale and presented it to the counsel).

Q  As a matter of fact, for the record, this is the tax declaration indicated in the deed of sale between you and your mother on May 15, 1989, do you confirm to that?

A  Yes, sir, this is the one.

Q  Other than this tax declaration, this indicates the following boundaries:

   On the northern portion, Francisco Butanes, on the Eastern portion, seashore and on the Southern portion, creek and on the Western portion is the national road.

   Would you agree with me that these boundaries referred to is what is now known as lot no. 2100?

A  Yes, sir.

Q  And this lot no. 2100 which you bought allegedly from your mother is certainly different from the lots claimed by the plaintiffs, am I correct?

A  Yes, sir.

Q  As a matter of fact, this is the same property you sold in favor to (sic) Intervenor Romulo Rañola?

A  Yes, sir, what is involved is only lot no. 2100.

Q  The very same property from your mother?

A  Yes, sir, excluding lot nos. 2279, 8970 and 2361.

Q  Let us make this clear, Miss Riveral, the property you purchased from your own mother is lot no. 2100, is that correct?

A  Yes, sir. 35

That Lot No. 2100 was the same property acquired by Riveral from her predecessors was further confirmed by Engr. Lorenzo Esmero of the Land Management Services of the DENR, to wit:

Q  x x x [C]an you point to the Court the property referred to under this tax declaration which bears the following boundaries:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road

A  Based on this letter, the lot that we describe is indicated lot 2100.

ATTY. MONTECLAR:

   The witness would be incompetent to testify on that point because he was not the one who prepared this list. AScHCD

COURT:

   Subject to that manifestation.

ATTY. FLORES:

   We wish to mark this tax declaration bearing no. 32527 as our exhibit "C"?

COURT:

   Mark it.

Q  Tax declaration bearing no. 4282 which cancels that tax declaration which I earlier marked, Your Honor has the following boundaries referring to the property indicated therein.

   The boundaries are:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road

   Again, pinpoint to the property referring to in this tax declaration?

A  Based on this list, as indicated in the sketch, is lot 2100.

Q  We wish to mark this tax declaration as our exh. "D". The declarant is one Gloria Arendain, the original owners (sic) of the property claimed by the intervenors. With the reservation insofar as the submission of the original, Your Honor.

COURT:

   Mark it.

ATTY. FLORES:

Q  Tax declaration no. 19056 which cancels and supercedes no. 4282 earlier marked as exhibit "D" refers to the property Binongkalan, Catmon, which has the following boundaries:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road

   Kindly pinpoint to the property referring to the tax declaration?

A  Still lot no. 2100

ATTY. FLORES:

   We request that this be marked as our exhibit "E".

COURT:

   Mark it.

ATTY. FLORES:

Q  Now, the owner is Leonora Riveral, again, this tax declaration has been cancelled by tax declaration no. 19076, likewise in the name of Leonora Arendain Riveral. The property referred to in this tax declaration has the following boundaries:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road caITAC

   Kindly point to the court the property.

A  Still the same, lot 2100.

Q  Likewise, Tax declaration no. 190, by the way, we wish to mark this as our exhibit "F".

COURT:

   Mark it.

ATTY. FLORES:

Q  Likewise tax declaration no. 19076, has been cancelled by tax declaration no. 19090 still in the name of Ma. Concepcion Riveral, the properties, referring to has the following boundaries:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road

Q  Does this refer to the same property?

A  Same property.

Q  We request that this be likewise marked as our exhibit "G".

COURT:

   Mark it.

ATTY. FLORES:

Q  Tax declaration no. 20236 cancels tax declaration no. 19090. This time, the owner referred to is intervenor Romeo Rañola. The property referred to has the following boundaries:

   North — Francisco Butanes

   East — Seashore

   South — Creek

   West — National Road

   Kindly pinpoint to us?

A  Still the same property, lot 2100.

Q  We wish to mark that this declaration as our exh. "H"?

COURT:

   Mark it. 36

Although Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 could not be declared to be owned by Rañola, the RTC had correctly ruled that Rañola could claim ownership of Lot No. 2100 by virtue of having acquired it from Riveral. There being no appeal of the RTC's judgment in favor of Rañola, the award of Lot No. 2100 to him has attained finality.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on August 4, 2005; MODIFIES the May 31, 1996 decision of the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City, Branch 22 in Civil Case No. CEB-8165; DECLARES respondent Romeo Rañola owner of Lot No. 2100 only; and DISMISSES respondent Rañola's complaint-in-intervention as to Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970. ICHDca

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

 

 

Footnotes

1. Records, pp. 1-31.

2.Id. at 4.

3.Id. at 11.

4.Id. at 51-54.

5.Id. at 52.

6.Id. at 57.

7.Id. at 58.

8.Id. at 55.

9.Id. at 85.

10.Id. at 88-91.

11.Id. at 92.

12.Id. at 232-235.

13.Id. at 243-244.

14.Rollo, pp. 35-42; penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap, with Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas concurring.

15.Id. at 38-40.

16.Id. at 43-45.

17.Id. at 9-10.

18.Macalino, Jr. v. Pis-An, G.R. No. 204056, June 1, 2016, 791 SCRA 672, 694.

19.Residents of Lower Atab & Teacher's Village, Barangay Sto. Tomas Proper, Baguio City v. Sta. Monica Industrial & Development Corporation, G.R. No. 198878, October 15, 2014, 738 SCRA 450, 460.

20.Macalino, Jr. v. Pis-An, G.R. No. 204056, June 1, 2016, 791 SCRA 672, 694.

21.Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016, 808 SCRA 130, 151.

22. Titong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111141, March 6, 1998, 287 SCRA 102, 110.

23. See Titong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111141, March 6, 1998, 287 SCRA 102, 110.

24. Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017.

25. See Pascual v. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 189, 205.

26. Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017.

27. VSD Realty & Development Corporation v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 170677, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 470, 486.

28. Records, p. 1.

29. Id. at 6.

30. Id. at 232-233.

31. Id. at 166; List of Exhibits for the Plaintiff and Intervenors, Exh. 5. (Special/Sketch Plan of Lots 2100, 2279 and 8970).

32. G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 599, 608-610.

33. Records, p. 92.

34. Id. at 167; List of Exhibits for the Plaintiff and Intervenors, Exh. 5. (Special/Sketch Plan of Lots 2100, 2279 and 8970).

35. TSN of April 3, 1995, pp. 10-13.

36. TSN of May 17, 1994, pp. 13-16.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "built" in the original document.